The bigger failure, from my vantage point, is that people who call themselves "atheists" today often have faith in there not being a god.
A circular argument.
No, for the argument that I presented later in the same post. The problem I have is the modern hijacking of the term atheist.
All the word smitihng doesn't convince me that there can be faith in "nothing" if a person is inclined to be an atheist.
If one declares there to be no god, they are making a statement of faith. It is of the same magnitude - though opposite orientation - as one made by someone declaring there to be a god.
Similarly, the classic definition of agnostic was a "doubter", one who questioned the existence of a deity. Then some of the "atheists" took on a faith of their own and pushed the classical atheists out in search of a new term to describe their standing.
Having faith that things I've never heard of that don't exist just seems like dividing by zero.
Perhaps I wasn't clear on this matter. My point is that people who specifically state a belief in there not being a particular (generally Abrahamic) god are calling themselves atheists when they are showing faith in that very statement. Similarly by the way that the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" have been redefined in modern times, one could reasonably describe any random person to likely be agnostic towards a deity that they have never heard of (unless they specifically subscribe to the existence of a different one in a way that prevents them from accepting any other).